Vanir Ausf B

If you want somewhat realistic performance of tanks in CMBN you need to set crew Experience level to conscript and Motivation to poor. Cranking them up to create terminators can be fun but you are playing a fantasy game when you do it. As for pricing, whether or not Panthers are too cheap is debatable, but it is interesting to look at the changes made to AVF pricing from CMx1 to CMBN. There are clearly some winners and losers under the new pricing scheme and Panthers are a clear winner, as are Jagdpanthers. Unit........... CMBB Price . CMBN Price . % increase Tiger I ........... 212 ........... 372 ........... 75% Pz IV H .......... 134 ........... 248 ........... 85% Jpz IV late ...... 148 ........... 326 .......... 120% Jagdpanther .... 250 .......... 382 ........... 53% Stug IIIG late .. 113 .......... 295 .......... 161% Panther A late . 238 ........... 360 ........... 51% Sherman 76 .... 147 .......... 257 ............ 75% Sherman 75 .... 119 .......... 194 ............ 63%

Fortunately, no one expects that.

Sometimes it's fun to dig up old CMx1 threads and see how these debates have come full circle. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=208301&postcount=8

US rockets... TRPs... 1st turn bombardments... artillery duration and intensity restrictions... I'm going to need a 3 ring binder for all my house rules.

So if people want mortars to be used historically what exactly are the rules that need to be made for multiplayer games?

The first Mortal Kombat movie wasn't bad. Seriously. As for the Halo "movie", yes there is one, kinda. No, Peter Jackson has nothing to do with it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/microsoft-skips-theaters-with-halo-film-on-youtube.html First episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJVgXBfSH8 Looks like Microsoft has a terrific marketing department. Release 5/6 of a movie for free then charge $29 to see the other 1/6.

That's how it worked in the CMx1 games. Why did you assume it was different now?

I don't even remember what the victory conditions were in Cats Chasing Dogs, but playing as the US I do recall thinking it was one of the easier scenarios I've played.

My bad. It's 3 action spots -- 24 meters.

Maybe it's the way I play, but I would estimate that of my total casualites in all the CMBN scenarios I've played to date about 80% have been to artillery or mortars.

He's was banned on multiple occasions under various aliases.

Don't know about the former, but Jeff was playing Theater of War as of a couple years ago. Odd choice for a grog head like himself. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89981

I wonder why they would have bothered with adapting the shell to fire from a rifle when just firing the mortar itself directly works so amazingly well.

Kettler: 0 CMBN: 3. Is that about right? It sounds like you exposed the 234/1 to enemy fire by either driving right up to the bocage or by placing it up in the gap where the road goes through rather then keeping it back and using the gap as a keyhole. If you sent a squad around to the right side late in the game unsupported then I'm not surprised it came to a grim end. I sent one squad over there at the beginning to check any advance up the eastern road before it could gained the east-west running bocage line facing my setup zone. In fact it was there that the first shots in my game were fired. If you sent all 3 squads to the west side of the VL to start with then the US troops would have been well entrenched by the time you came back. At a minimum you would have needed the 234/1 to provide fire support to drive them off.

Except that if they are behind a low wall, bocage or other cover that cannot be seen over from a prone position they completely lose situational awareness in that direction. This is what needs to be remedied, if not with a new command then alternatively a modification to the Hide command so that one squad/team member will automatically remain "kneeling" if they are adjacent to such cover and have a covered arc in that direction.

I think section HQs in the same platoon can share with each other but not with units subordinate to another section HQ. Again, I haven't tested to be sure.

Because they are completely different. It's confusing, but your account for Battlefront.com and your account for the BFC forum are separate. When I ordered CMBN I was asked for a email address to send order confirmation to. That email address is my username for the Repository. This is the text of the email they sent me. You should have received something similar:

I haven't tested, but I'm fairly sure the section HQ is considered the immediate HQ.

I've been in the pro-SOP camp forever, for all the good it's done.

I cant speak for tiger123, but were I to wave my magic wand the result would be that only one member of the team or squad would be keeping lookout while the rest kept their faces in the dirt.

CMFI contains 29% more realism and is lower in saturated fat.

They did that last week. If BFC were to do another CMSF module they would presumably have to delay one of their current projects. I don't see that happening but they've surprised me before.

Yes, I know he clashed with a lot of people during the war, but I was referring more to the popular perception of him outside of military circles. I don't know the answer but a little googling turns up the fact that he was an honorary citizen of Montgomery, Alabama until his memoirs were published in 1958 at which point it was revoked.

For what it's worth, page 87 of the CMBN manual: So apparently hiding vehicles should make less noise, but it doesn't say they will make no noise at all. No idea if this is working. It also seems to function as a sort of soft covered arc. But I wonder if hiding vehicles have reduced spotting like hiding infantry. They shouldn't.

It's fairly irrelevant if burning vehicles produce noise since they also produce a huge smoke plume visible from everywhere.